To the intel haters.

[ta8689]

Originally posted by: alpha88
I don't like intel because they stopped using the blue man group.

I dont like Intel because they are all about advertising. To be honest, ive never seen an AMD commercial. EVER. Amd sells with its reputation, not the blueman group and dell throwing its name all over the tv for computer illiterates to say "dude, im getting a dell!" Bleh

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Blain
It's clear that AMDfanboyz wouldn't know a quality CPU if it fell on their heads from a two story rooftop.

Intel is the clear leader in fabrication process, architecture, single and multi-thread performance, not to mention thermal management and cost structure.

Intel may have a good working 65 nm process currently, but they are behind in architecture (no hypertransport or integrated memory controller), behind in bang/buck and performance, and thermal management. Obviously you must be an Intel fanboy to even make a statement like this.

 

[d3lt4]

I just buy the best bang for buck cause I'm poor. And right now that's AMD.

 

[stelleg151]

Underdog FTW. People still bought XPs even when they were pale in comparison with northwood. I dont know why people get worked up about this either. If someone has slight preference for one company over another, but are not getting the BEST bang for their buck, even if it might be virtually impossible to see the realworld difference, people flip out at them and call them a fanboy.

 

[Zebo]

Nobody i know in these forums hates intel. The are slack for the last 6 years only 8 months have they had superior performance and only because A64 was late. That's why the well informend choose AMD - has nothing to do with hate but instead the billfold and wanting the best.

 

[extra]

Most of us AMD "fans" don't have any problems with Intel. We just believe that AMD offers a better product at better prices at this time. For the majority of users now, that would be surfing these forums, AMD seems like the better most logical choice. That is all. I have zero problems with Intel, and it is my sincere hope that this year Intel gains a performance advantage over AMD so that AMD prices begin to drop down again! Competition ftw.

Believe me, if Intel had a chip like the celeron 300a (comparatively speaking, to everything else that is out now, for performance via oc'ing and price) everyone would be telling people to build an Intel system.

 

[Blain]

Originally posted by: calvinHobbs

Originally posted by: Blain
It's clear that AMDfanboyz wouldn't know a quality CPU if it fell on their heads from a two story rooftop.

Intel is the clear leader in fabrication process, architecture, single and multi-thread performance, not to mention thermal management and cost structure.

:shocked: you're being sarcastic, right? :laugh:

Yes... I thought that was cleared up with this...

Originally posted by: Blain
LoL... :laugh:
I've used Intel, AMD and Cyrix based CPU's (we'll forget about that last one).
From what I've observed, some tension arose over Intel CPUs when they started locking the multipliers. Yes, AMD has done it also. But people don't forget which company was the first to start.
Another part of the ire against Intel is their constantly changing MB platforms. AMD has been a little more consistent.

I've had Intel and AMD processors that have OCd like crazy. I've also had some from each that couldn't reach much beyond default.

I tend to be an Intel fan, basically because of more straight forward setups and stability. Besides having to use the "right" memory, Intel combos are fairly rock solid.
Not that I haven't liked AMD rigs. I've had MP's and XP-M's that I dearly loved. I'm running a 3.4 Northwood right now. But I've been scoping out the Opteron scene.

 

[StrangerGuy]

AMD provides the best performance/price ratio right now, and chips run significantly cooler, and thus are generally preferred by ATers over Intel ones. This may change when Yonah/Conroe arrives to the scene.

 

[StarLancer]

Ive ran my share of Intel and AMD setups. My GF is currently running a P3 1ghz with 512m Ram and im on a AMD 64 3000+.
I choose AMD over intel because i know AMD, ive used them MUCH longer than Intel and im more familiar with the AMD scene than with the intel scene.

 

[ND40oz]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: CheesePoofs
Basically AMD is currently making CPUs that are far better than the Intel counterparts for most uses, at least on the desktop. Intel is also a beast, they have a huge market presence and use it to try and keep that presence. My biggest fear is that Intel will force AMD out of the market at some point and we will once again only have one major CPU company, meaning no competition.

i don't think this will happen, i just wish amd could grab more of the huge oem stuff, like ibm(lenova), dell, etc. if for no other reason than competition and cheaper prices for us

They did grab Lenovo, at least partly. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=959

Too bad that lenovo's using it only for low end systems. I emailed my rep as soon as I saw that article to try and get an X2 based system and was told they don't have any in the works.

 

[pkme2]

We don't hate Intel, we just like AMD more, well at least I do.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: xtknight
If it weren't for Intel's x86 CPUs, I doubt AMD would have any either. I'd still buy an Intel CPU+Intel Chipset for beginners. They are simply a more stable platform. In my experience, the nForce 4 isn't as stable either. VIA paled in comparison when it comes to stability. We won't even get into SiS. BSODs are rampant on my Athlon 64 system compared to my Pentium 4 one. Rampant, of course, is relative. nForce 4 IDE drivers are awful (NCQ corruption, BIOS incompatibilities causing BSODs). My Diamond Max 10 drive won't detect half of the time on boot-up. If I overclock 1 MHz in the BIOS, it refuses to POST whatsoever (at least it used to). Linux will not install without APIC disabled either. If Intel made chipsets for AMD CPUs, that would be like the second coming of Christ.

Dude, my 2800xp athlon is rock solid. I can't recall the last time it gave a blue screen. Oh, and that's overclocked as well.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Blain
It's clear that AMDfanboyz wouldn't know a quality CPU if it fell on their heads from a two story rooftop.

Intel is the clear leader in fabrication process, architecture, single and multi-thread performance, not to mention thermal management and cost structure.

*taps sarcasm meter*

I hate to break it to you, but AMD is the clear leader in all of those categories, though intel's upcoming designs may start to level the playing field, which would be excellent news for consumers.

 

[unmerited]

I used Intel exclusively from the 8088 through the PII. I needed a budget system and decided to try AMD. Haven't looked back since. With that said, though, I still think Intel is a good chip maker, but as others have mentioned I like the price/performance ratio.



unmerited

 

[fire400]

Intel Pentium 4's multitask much better than the AMD Athlon 64 series, but will not outperform the 64's in single gaming applications and the such. The new Athlon 64 dualcore processors outmatch the Intel dualcores. But with Core Dual out on laptops, AMD may have found something to not brag about as far as laptop processors go. The Core Duals actually look very impressive.

Either way, Pentium 4's will always be fast. The LGA 755 P4 with 2megs of cache and also clocked at 3 GHz is an impressive processor. I wouldn't get it though, not when websites are offering Pentium D's for under $150. But who needs any of that, just stay cool with a Northwood and you can play just about any game you want, Athlon 64 3200 for the same matter.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: Blain
I tend to be an Intel fan, basically because of more straight forward setups and stability. Besides having to use the "right" memory, Intel combos are fairly rock solid.
Not that I haven't liked AMD rigs. I've had MP's and XP-M's that I dearly loved. I'm running a 3.4 Northwood right now. But I've been scoping out the Opteron scene.

The stability issue went away once AMD took the memory controller out of VIA's hands, and put it into the CPU.

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: w00t
[
socket AM2 preformed very close to socket 939 so why upgrade? when you have to buy a processor, motherboard, and memory.

A pre-production CPU with a known memory bug (already fixed), run on a very pre-production motherboard very closely matched a fully matured production skt939 CPU/motherboard standard in performance, and did match it in stability. The future of socket AM2 looks very bright.

 

[djnsmith7]

Originally posted by: Smartazz
I've used intel processors since the Pentium 1 and have no problem with them, now people tell me I made a huge mistake going with intel this time, why, is AMD that much better than intel?

Most people around here would probably say the same thing I will...You get more bang for your buck w/ AMD CPU's...

I've had great luck w/ them & can't see making the switch anytime soon...They're awesome for gamers...

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
Yeah, and you remember when pretty much only VIA was making chipsets for the AMD boards? Ugh, that was horrible.

VIA is the main reason that I don't use non-Intel chips or chipsets anymore.

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
Yeah, and you remember when pretty much only VIA was making chipsets for the AMD boards? Ugh, that was horrible.

VIA is the main reason that I don't use non-Intel chips or chipsets anymore.

Yep. The same reason I went with dual Xeons. At the time when I got them, the AMD server mobos were complete crap. They have caught up nicely now.

 

[BFG10K]

The main reason is that the Athlon64 series gives me better gaming performance than Intel solutions do.

 

[Continuity28]

I don't hate Intel, but they are easier to dislike than AMD. Some of their practices have stifled competition, which is bad for me - the consumer. Many years ago, Intel had a virtual monopoly on processors, which spawned absurd prices for stagnant technology. Had AMD not gained as much influence in the market as they did in recent times, Intel would have become Creative Labs: No/little advancements for a premium... everyone loses.

This market needs advancement, it's technology for f***s sake. Without competition, we are stuck in the stone age. Since Intel have attempted to stagnate the market before by withholding technology in case a competitor showed up, they aren't my preferred company. I will buy Intel's products if they are truly superior, but they need to earn it - because they have wronged me and the market in the past.

 

[ciproxr]

I bought a amd athlon 64 3200+ in april 2005.....I had a 1.3 intel celeron b4 that and while it was not the fastest processor, it was very reliable and never gave me any trouble for almost 3 years......I picked amd for my current pc cause:

1) more bang for your buck
2) was a 64bit processor, not 32
3) no thermal paste needed, came with its own on it...
4) was the underdog
5)I, like everyone else believe that competition between the two is a good things and felt the need to support amd cause intel has a greater chare of the market.

Like someone mentioned above, its not that i hate intel, just like amd better lol

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Smartazz
I've used intel processors since the Pentium 1 and have no problem with them, now people tell me I made a huge mistake going with intel this time, why, is AMD that much better than intel?

Then you can tell me why you hate AMD and I will reply by telling you how much better Athlon 64 is.

 

[0roo0roo]

without amd they'd bend u right over and have their way with u. its just the way it is.

Had AMD not gained as much influence in the market as they did in recent times, Intel would have become Creative Labs: No/little advancements for a premium... everyone loses.

yea, the audio tech for pc's is stagnant now that creative is essentially alone. i won't give creative a cent.